What Can We Say About the Economic, Institutional, and Legal Framework for Sustainable Forest Management in the United States?
Roundtable on Sustainable ForestsTechnical Workshop
April 13-14, 2005Minneapolis, MN
Michael A. Kilgore and Paul EllefsonDepartment of Forest Resources,
University of MinnesotaSt. Paul, MN
Montréal Process CriteriaMontréal Process Criteria No. of No. of IndicatorsIndicators
1 Conservation of Biological Diversity 9
2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity: Forest Ecosystems
5
3. Maintenance: Forest Ecosystem Health
3
4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
8
5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles
3
6. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socio-Economic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Society
19
7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management
20
Indicators – Legal FrameworkIndicators – Legal Framework5 Indicators
Property rights
Periodic planning, assessment, & policy review
Public participation opportunities in policy
Best management practices for forest management
Conservation of special environmental, cultural, social and scientific values
Indicators – Institutional FrameworkIndicators – Institutional Framework
5 Indicators
Public education, extension, and information
Periodic planning, assessment, & policy review
Human resource skills
Physical infrastructure for forest management
Enforcement of laws, regulations, and guidelines
Indicators – Economic FrameworkIndicators – Economic Framework
2 Indicators
Investment, taxation, and regulatory policies that encourage long-term investment
Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products
Indicators – Monitoring FrameworkIndicators – Monitoring Framework
3 Indicators
– Data and statistics describing Criteria 1-7 indicators
– Forest inventories, assessments, and monitoring
– Indicator compatibility with other countries
Indicators – Research FrameworkIndicators – Research Framework5 Indicators
Forest ecosystem characteristics & functions
Measure and integrate environmental and social values
Technology and its impacts
Human impacts on forest ecosystems
Climate change
National Report:National Report:
Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Economic Framework (12 indicators)Economic Framework (12 indicators)
Led by:– Dept. of Forest Resources, U of MN
– USDA-Forest Service-Southern Research Station
Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Assessment of Institutional, Legal, and Economic FrameworkEconomic Framework
Review Structure:Interpretation (definitions and clarity)
Conceptual & theoretical background (rationale)
Capacity (private, federal, state, local)
Issues and trends (change in conditions)
Information adequacy (major deficiencies)
Indicator appropriateness (usefulness, compatibility with other indicators)
Institutional, Legal, and Economic Institutional, Legal, and Economic Framework AssessmentFramework Assessment
Review focused on identifying information capable of describing:– Current and future conditions
– Capability or potential to address a subject area
Less focus was placed on:– Evaluating the outcomes associated with
implementation
– Value judgments about implementation
Criteria DescriptionsCriteria DescriptionsIdeally:
Criteria should describe a distinct condition or outcome.– e.g., Conservation of biological diversity. (C #1)
What We Have:
6 Criteria are condition/outcome oriented– Maintenance of…
– Conservation of…
Criteria 7 is not outcome or condition oriented
Subcriteria DescriptionsSubcriteria DescriptionsIdeally:
Subcriteria should describe a distinct subset of this condition or outcome
What We Have:3 subcriteria
– Legal
– Institutional
– Economic
Distinction between Institutional & Legal not always clear
– Institution may include legal considerations
Planning (49) and Planning (54)
BMPs (51) and Enforcement (57)
Indicator DescriptionsIndicator DescriptionsIdeally:
Easy to understand
Descriptive of the subject
Grounded in important principles/concepts
Sensitive to change
Relevant to stakeholders
Capable of describing current & future conditions
Described at the appropriate scale
Measurable
Indicator DescriptionsIndicator DescriptionsWhat We Found:
Indicators did not meet these standards
In most cases, indicator language was difficult to interpret
Review team made several suggested changes to existing indicator language
Indicator DataIndicator Data
Ideally:
Sufficient in quantity
Sufficient in quality
Capable of being aggregated
Capable of being analyzed
Collected over time
Available at a reasonable cost
Indicator DataIndicator DataWhat We Found:
Data was:
– Incomplete
– Not always at the appropriate scale
– Not uniformly collected
– Not always up to date
– Not always able to describe important trends
Important Indicator and Data IssuesImportant Indicator and Data Issues
AvailabilityAvailability
ScopeScope
ScaleScale
UsefulnessUsefulness
AvailabilityAvailabilityData availability was extremely variable among indicators
Huge data gaps were the norm
Some data we thought was readily available had not been compiled
Even when available, data sometimes not the right scale or in the right form.– e.g., regional, but not national data
ScopeScope
Ecological Scope: Indicators focused broadly on forest resource values as well as specific forest resources
– Planning (49): broad definition of forest values and outputs
– BMP (51) & enforcement (57): water quality focus
– Infrastructure (56): Wood products focus
ScopeScopeInstitutional Scope – Uncertainty regarding indicator focus on agencies with exclusive vs. primary vs. tangential focus on forests– Forest Service only vs. FS, BLM, EPA, etc.
Indicator Scope -- Variability influenced overlap with other indicators– Broad indicator scope: indicator overlap
Public participation (50,53)Planning (49, 54)Investment and trade policies (58, 59)
ScaleScaleInstitutional Scale Variable indicator focus on:– Federal– State– Local organizations
Sector Scale Variable Indicator focus on:– Public– Private sectors
UsefulnessUsefulnessData Shortcomings:Data Shortcomings:
OutdatedOutdated
Incompatible with other data setsIncompatible with other data sets
IncompleteIncomplete
Inability to describe trendsInability to describe trends
Summary: Criterion 7 IndicatorsSummary: Criterion 7 Indicators
Indicator Ambiguity: Indicator wording not always clear and unambiguous – hampered evaluation and interpretation
Indicator Redundancy: Some indicators might be better placed with other Criteria– e.g., Focus C#7 on Legal and Institutional
Capacity– Move economic indicators (58-59) to
Criteria #6
Existing data provide anincomplete picture about the legal, institutional, and economic frameworks.
Summary: Criterion 7 DataSummary: Criterion 7 Data
Does existing data give us enough information to draw a “bottom line” conclusion about the sustainability of U.S. economic, institutional, and legal frameworks? Probably not.
Does existing data provide enough information about specific aspects of the U.S.’s economic, legal, and institutional framework? Maybe.
Summary: Criterion 7 DataSummary: Criterion 7 Data
Our Conclusions…Our Conclusions… In spite of these concerns, theexercise was worthwhile
Provides a platform to make future judgments about legal,
economic, and institutional indicators more meaningful
Think About… How to interpret/synthesize the data used to describe these indicators, given the extensive scope of the subject matter
addressed by this criterion? The messages are sometimes conflicting
Are there "core" indicators for Criterion 7 that should be the focus of future data gathering efforts?
“Shotgun” versus “targeted” approach
Think About…
How can indicators focus more on outcomes and less on influences?
– Example:
Taxation & cost-share policies and programs versus levels of investment in private forest land management
Think About…Think About…The need to define Sustainable Forest Mgmt.– Helpful, but is it possible? Is it necessary?
Index of Sustainable Forest Management? – Further “lumping” will make interpretation
difficult
Greater emphasis on trend information – I‘ll take time series data on SOMETHING over
the quest for the “perfect" indicator any day of the week
A good executive summary that interprets the C&I data in LAY TERMS. – National Report reads like “inside baseball”
Questions?Questions?